From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Proper partition type for components with V1.x superblocks? Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:33:08 -0700 Message-ID: <48725354.1070900@zytor.com> References: <484F9A3E.7020709@rabbit.us> <18512.25940.653867.623185@notabene.brown> <486BFB03.7060100@zytor.com> <1215062276.14196.6.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> <18545.35548.800516.532854@notabene.brown> <1215439360.14196.17.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1215439360.14196.17.camel@firewall.xsintricity.com> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Doug Ledford Cc: Neil Brown , Peter Rabbitson , linux-raid@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-raid.ids Doug Ledford wrote: > > The same is true of version 0.90.0 superblocks. It was probably a bad > decision to make raid1 arrays mountable as normal filesystems in > hindsight, but it did ease a lot of things at the time (like booting > from a raid1 device using lilo, the only boot loader back in the day). > In any case, given the number of existing 0.90.0 and 1.0 superblock > systems out there, any install code that doesn't look for them is just > flat deficient. So I can see your point from the stand point of wanting > to correct a past mistake, but the flip side of the coin is that even if > you do such a thing, any installer will still be buggy and broken for > many years to come if it doesn't check for raid superblocks before > treating a filesystem like a normal filesystem. > It certainly helps bootloaders wanting to boot off RAID-1. 1.2 superblocks, at the beginning but with an offset, are fine for that purpose too, but requires special handling. -hpa